The court upheld prior judgments affirming ownership and the landlord-tenant relationship, rejecting claims of adverse possession and ownership through will as legally insufficient.

ORDER :

C. M. Poonacha, J.

CRP No.100086/2023 is filed challenging the order dated 27.03.2023 passed in S.C.No.45/2020 by the Court of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'). CRP No.100087/2023 is filed challenging the order dated 27.03.2023 passed in S.C.No.46/2020 by the Trial Court.

2. Both the petitions are filed under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'). The petitioner in both the petitions are one and the same and he was arrayed as Defendant No.4 in SC No.45/2020 and as the Defendant in SC No.46/2020. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in CRP No.100086/2023 and the respondent in CRP No.100087/2023 are the plaintiffs in both the suits who sought for eviction of the tenant from the suit premises. Respondent Nos.6 to 8 in CRP No.100086/2023 were arrayed as Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in SC No.45/2020 since they were the legal heirs of the original tenant.

3. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court as also of their status.

4. SC No.45/2020 was filed by the Plaintiffs arraying the legal heirs of the original tenant Sri Sambhajirao Chavan as Defendant Nos.1 to 3. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 to implead himself and the Trial Court by order dated 19.11.2021 allowed the said application and permitted him to come on record as Defendant No.4 in the said suit. The suit property in the said suit is the residential premises on the western side situated in CTS No.3181 measuring 109 sq. yards situated at Dajiban Peth, Hubballi. SC No.46/2020 is filed by the plaintiffs for eviction of the Defendant (who is the petitioner in the present petition) from the suit premises which is a commercial shop on the western side of CTS No.3181 measuring 109 sq. yards of Dajibanpeth, Hubballi.

5. It is forthcoming that plaintiffs before the Trial Court are the same and the petition schedule premises is the same but in SC No.45/2020 it is in respect of residential premises and in SC No.46/2020 it is in respect of commercial shop.

6. It is the case of the plaintiffs in both the suits that one Iravva was the owner of the suit property and she died in the year 1993 leaving behind her adopted son Gangadhar and his name was mutated in respect of the suit property. The said Gangadhar sold the suit property to one Ganapathsa vide registered Sale Deed dated 09.05.1995 and it was specifically mentioned in the registered sale deed that the purchaser was authorized to collect rent from tenants and also initiate such other proceedings against the tenants as may be permissible under law.

7. It is further averred that the 4th defendant in the suit who is the petitioner in the present petition and others had filed OS Nos.30/1994 which was dismissed on 10.10.2000 and the appeal in RFA Nos.19/2001 was dismissed by this Court on 17.09.2003 which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.09.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No.3965/2004 and 3966/2004 wherein it was held that Ganapathsa was the absolute owner of the suit property.

8. The plaintiffs before the Trial Court are the wife and children of the said Ganapathsa. Consequent to death of Ganapathsa, plaintiffs requested the tenant to pay the arrears of rent and as also to terminate the tenancy vide legal notice dated 16.01.2020. Since the demands made in the said notice were